Humanities desk
< July 20	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 22 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 21

How do apartment tenants group together paychecks?

I recently read that apartment tenants could pay separately or together with the same paycheck, depending on the landlord. I don't understand how checks can be combined into one when there are two bank accounts that belong to two bank account holders. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 02:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How are you using the term "paycheck"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You don't give your paycheck to the landlord. You give a personal check to the landlord. The two years I lived in an apartment, I had two roommates. I collected rent money from each of them, then wrote a check for the full rent to the landlord. It wasn't complicated.--Jayron 32 04:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is one way. Another way is that both tenants sign the lease, and both tenants agree to pay in one check. In that situation, how are checks grouped together instead of billing the members individually or billing members under the first tenant? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 11:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The multiple tenants could open a joint bank account... each would contribute to that account, and the check would be drawn from that account. Blueboar (talk) 11:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it were a single-purpose account, that would be an escrow account; I don't know that escrow is typically used for something as simple as roommates sharing rent. I don't see why it couldn't be done, I just don't know that it really ever is. In terms of real estate, escrow is typically used as a means of simplifying the complex payments involved in mortgage servicing; the homeowner makes a single monthly payment into the escrow account, and then automatic withdrawals are made from that account to pay all of the various obligations involved in the mortgage (such as repayment to the bank that holds the note, fees to a service company, fire insurance, flood insurance, property taxes etc.) Rental agreements are rarely so complicated; all such obligations are born by the property owner not the renter, whose only obligation is to pay rent and services (water, electric, entertainment, security). Some rental agreements cover such services, but typically not under an escrow agreement but rather as being "included" in a flat rental fee. --Jayron 32 16:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You still use cheques for rent in the States? Not direct debits? How inconvenient! 86.28.195.109 (talk) 07:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be a standing order (initiated by the tenant's bank), not a direct debit (initiated by the landlord's). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 08:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, usually some kind of Electronic funds transfer is set up. As noted above, this can be initiated by the recipient (a debit) or by the payer (called an "autodraft" short for "automatic bank draft", see [1]. The only people who write checks regularly anymore are senior citizens who still use landline telephones and have tube televisions. There are a few times a month when I write a check for an incidental situation when it is more convenient than electronic payment, such as paying fees for a field trip for my kids school, or something like that; but even that gets rarer, many people now have Paypal or Square or some such. --Jayron 32 11:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And of course those senior citizens whom you despise also receive cheques (for example dividends on shareholdings). As you observe in the section above the cheques don't write themselves. They also don't lose hundreds of thousands of pounds from their bank accounts to cyber thieves because they don't bank online either. So which group is the smartest? 92.19.168.169 (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously not me, I'm an asshole. --Jayron 32 16:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you always so anal? Oh, that's right, you're an asshole. It comes with the territory. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC) [reply]

This conversation shows a bias in Wikipedia editors. I can't believe nobody's mentioned money orders. Most renters I know, especially those in the poorer parts of town (most of whom don't even have a bank account), pay their rent with a money order. Come rent day, the tenants gather their cash, purchase a money order from the corner store (or the WalMart) and hand it to the apartment manager. I don't know anybody who actually writes checks anymore, but there are millions of people here in California alone who have never used any form of electronic payment (except their EBT card) and rely on money orders to pay rent and bills.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 11:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

bankruptcy and freedom of movement

In most countries, people have the freedom of movement where they can leave their country if they so chooses. It's considered a basic human right for pretty much everywhere except North Korea.

But how does this right work in cases of bankruptcy? On the one hand, the government can't deny someone from leaving the country; on the other hand, we can't afford to have people declare bankruptcy then immediately leave the country so that their wages won't be garnished. Covfefe beans (talk) 07:18, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are some strange situations in some countries. The vast majority of the inhabitants of the UAE are foreigners (expats, immigrants). If they are on the verge of bankruptcy (eg a small business they own has cash flow problems), it is a logical impulse to flee the country[2]. A few months ago, the law changed.[3]. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 07:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"the government can't deny someone from leaving the country" not really true since even relatively progressive countries limit or deny people the right to leave the country in certain circumstances. The general difference between places like North Korea and more progressive places is not that the progressive places never restrict the right to travel or leave the country but that in the progressive place you have the right unless the government considers they have a good enough reason to deny it. In places like North Korea, you do not generally have automatic right and instead have to have a good enough reason to leave the country. As with all things like this the boundaries can get fussy. Our Freedom of movement#Exit restrictions in certain countries and Illegal emigration cover this slightly but not very well. To give an example, in the specific case of insolvency, NZ requires you to seek permission [4] and Sweden evidentally allows the administrator to ask the court to place a travel prohibition [5]. Other common examples may be unpaid child support, unpaid fines, and being charged with a criminal offence. Nil Einne (talk) 12:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, there's the related concept of Debtors' prison which IIRC was discussed recently on the RD (or maybe it was elsewhere). As mentioned there the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights says "No one shall be imprisoned merely on the ground of inability to fulfill a contractual obligation" and there are also various local laws which disallow people being sent to jail solely for being unable to paid their debts. UAE mentioned above is one country which still seems to explicitly allow this. But many other countries still imprison people for not paying their debts in certain circumstances, generally this is only supposed to happen when the person is simply refusing to especially when there is a court order, rather than being unable to. But how well this is implemented may vary. Nil Einne (talk) 12:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It also depends on the manner of the debt. In many countries, private debts (debts between private citizens) cannot result in imprisonment; however debts to the state may result in imprisonment (for example, debts on unpaid taxes, see tax evasion). --Jayron 32 12:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to add: Debtors' prison is one case where our article does seem to do a good job in general (although still very limited in specific examples and also not that well sourced in places). Also some people question the distinction between being unable to and refusing to (or unwilling to) in my second last question Nil Einne (talk) 12:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Courts in the UK can require bankrupts to hand over their passport to the court, but this is unusual. The court would need some evidence that the bankrupt is a flight risk.[6] Matt's talk 23:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-pornography feminism

This is not a question meant to convince people of my opinion, but more or less a question as to why people think like this. Why are men always blamed for the "consequences" of the existence of women in pornography when it's the women themselves who agree to it, fully support it, and oftentimes produce it, in the adult industry? Doesn't that mean that women against pornography should mostly be blaming other women and much less so the men who are the majority of people watching pornography that features women, since women are essentially the ones who undergo and highly encourage most of the production? Also, in that case, I question whether that viewpoint is even "feminism" anymore, but rather just people getting mad at other people. I feel like people against pornography act as if women are being held captive and forced to do it, even though they don't say that; they must think that if this is how they act about it. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 17:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing in that section about blaming anyone. It talks mainly about them opposing the whole business as causing harm. Dmcq (talk) 17:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For one, some (not all) women are that slutty because men did sexual things to them as a child. I don't know if this is one of the more common arguments but it doesn't help. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

". . . as if women are being held captive and forced to do it. . ." I'm fairly sure that this is considered by some anti-pornographers to be sometimes if not often true, and in some instances it may be. For example, Linda Lovelace has claimed that she was coerced by an abusive boyfrend into acting in Deep Throat, and forced to perform fellatio (and other acts in other movies) literally at gunpoint. (I take no position on the truth or falsity of these claims, given the contexts of their being made.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.9.82.177 (talk) 18:19, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm not gay but $20 is $20...maybe they blame men for using money to lure women into the industry. 72.38.213.159 (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm straight too but I wouldn't have sex with a male for $200 billion. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why do some feminists oppose all pornography, and why do many have reservations about at least some part of the industry? The article you link to provides a wide range of answers:

Harm to women during production

Social harm from exposure to pornography

Women reduced to sex objects

Enticement to sexual violence against females

Rape of children

Distorted view of the human body and sexuality

Hatred of women

There are plenty of references in the article. I'm not saying that these arguments go unchallenged, but if you want to know why some activists take issue with pornography, this is a good place to start. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I read through that article and a couple of the main sources are not mainstream feminists but are heavily criticized by their peers and make arguments that all sex is violence against women or that BDSM is illegal as it is torture. Of 19 (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to know what the arguments are, you should peruse some of the writings of Andrea Dworkin... AnonMoos (talk) 03:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]